Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 6, 2008 7:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Political Challenge, Sorry.

OK. I've (hypocritically) told many that this isn't the place for politics, but at minimum it stirs debate and with some, an intellectual challenge. It's both frustrating and enjoyable, but I have yet to see the debates here go the extra mile, to get into the roots of ideology that by all measure should form our opinions.

So here goes, forget about Bush and McCain, they're history. For the sake of argument, let's say this election was both a referendum and a mandate, rejecting conservative ideals in favor of a more liberal government. Agreed?

Since it is and has always been about the economy and it's effect on the moral and social health of our country, let's go there; Our President made the statement to Joe the Plumber, that his tax plan would "spread the wealth." In fairness, lets not label this as socialist behavior, let's be intellects about it.

Obama should have said; "Supply side economics and their trickle down effect have clearly failed and I believe that a return to Keynesian economic principles would more fairly benefit our society."

This, fellow board members, is the key to the success or failure that looms ahead of us. This is the cornerstone of the government that is coming in, and it warrants both discussion and criticism. I for one believe that Keynesian economics will not work in a global environment, but will wait for other theories to flesh out my position.

So, I believe I've removed all the opportunity for name calling, hateful remarks, and partisan politics from the scenario, enabling a truly intellectual dialogue from all politicos concerned. I firmly believe that this one subject and the general public's understanding of it, is primary to forming your own personal and political identity. It's study removes nearly all of the subjective nature of the political world and rather neatly creates an ideology.

Why has Supply Side Economics failed, and how will Keynesian Economics succeed and improve our country?

(BD, I believe this one is right in your wheelhouse.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Nov 6, 2008 8:43am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

I think it is a good question, and with our incredible escalating national debt and more bailouts on the horizon, and certainly worthy of debate. That said, I'll take the McCain approach to economics: I don't know as much as I should and defer to others with more intelligence in that arena. I do think it's good that Obama is taking advice from the likes of Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker (not exactly the far left fringe). I will ponder your question, but have you seen this recent report? Someone recently emailed it to me and it is worthy of a look (and I'm sure it contains its own biases - then again, wasn't the creation of supply side economic theory done on the back of a napkin? Where is David Stockman?):

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/supply_side.pdf

I'll return to this debate after the work day - got a hearing to prepare for tomorrow.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 6, 2008 12:37pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

BD: Thanks for your able participation. Besides you and WT, I wish I could say the same for others. Pretty disappointing, but I guess this really isn't the venue. I should have known better.

Anyway, here's what spawned my interest, it's a little rambling but seems fairly plausible. Like most, the theory is readily grasped, the effects and unintended consequences a little hazy;

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Nov 6, 2008 5:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

>>>Anyway, here's what spawned my interest, it's a little rambling but seems fairly plausible. Like most, the theory is readily grasped, the effects and unintended consequences a little hazy;
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491>;>>

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

While I'm always glad to read about Kahneman and Tversky and heirs, and I agreed with the last paragraph, but I think it was the "theory" that was hazy and the smaller points readily grasped.

For example, "A refusal to accept that individual freedoms sometimes have to be curtailed for the general good is an extreme position even for a neoclassical economist to take, and it is alien to the traditions of the Democratic Party."

That's downright silly. Just look at the split between Milton Friedman and John Kenneth Galbraith. Which one was allied with Democrats, and what's the difference between "libertarian paternalism" and market socialism?

Even then while Friedman claimed government intervention is uneconomic, the Chicago School was busy organizing military dictatorships or running the IMF, and always involved with massive government spending, and almost always borrowed money with abandon despite lip service to inflation.

In other words, most economist claim the wonders of the market but always turn to the government to help their favored industries. For now they're back to the drawing board and spinning wheels into grants -- and they've got little to say about our future investments being swallowed whole by crooks and the gullible.

So what's the point about the phony old labels of the economists of the elite?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

BD posted:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/supply_side.pdf

That group is connected to Clinton and Obama, so their papers should be good indicators.



This post was modified by spacedface on 2008-11-06 18:50:19

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:16am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

>>So here goes, forget about Bush and McCain, they're history.>>>

Sorry Bush is still President.


>>>Obama should have said; "Supply side economics and their trickle down effect have clearly failed and I believe that a return to Keynesian economic principles would more fairly benefit our society.">>>

Wasn't it Nixon who said we're all Keynesians now? You really have to know a bit more to discuss this fairly.

Have you ever wondered why Republicans are the ones who have put the USA in great debt?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 6, 2008 11:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.



Shoot the messenger and the subject still remains there on the table.

So again and succinctly as possible, what is your view on adopting a new economic strategy to get our asses out of this mess? How would you define Obama's strategy? What are it's benefits? How will it differ from what we have today?

No caveats, or is the question still unfair? If so, why?

Honest, if we're in a really fucked place, as it appears we might be, I want to know how the new model will be improve the quality of life.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Nov 6, 2008 6:10pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

Earl:

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Nov 6, 2008 1:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

Earl, if you know why Nixon said "we're all Keysnians now," perhaps you can phrase the question better.

Still, don't be surprised if there's an unsatisfactory answer, since the there's no easy answers in economic development. I guess some labels of the schools matter, but in practice it's deficit spending all around and has been for years.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: He Live's Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: ECONOMICS !)!

keynesian

well thanks for getting me to read that article. the keynesian approach seems somewhat intuitive to me. you are never doing anything too drastic. so sometimes you're bull, sometimes your bear. when you're bear, you minimize the losses. when you're bull you maximize profits.

and we have been to the top of BULLshit mountain in the last 8 years. as the idiot government regulators, treasury, all those oversight people completely blew it and the BANKING and CREDIT and INSURANCE industries built and bought bunches of houses with money made loose to spur on the HOUSING SECTOR, the closest we can currently come to any degree of MANUFACTURING.

the banking, credit, and insurance people -- they are making money off of money. not of actually doing/producing. it turns out they built an empire with a mushy cardboard foundation.

this is what i would expect from OBAMA:PRAGMATIC

i think obama will potentially prove to be a man of clear vision. he may not knock your sox off -- but, well, put it this way -- i think something positive may happen during his presidency. i think he will actually Accomplish something real. he is the first politician that has ever actually excited me one iota. i am completely loathsome of the entire disgrace of fake fucking corporate asshole american politicians. Barak Obama, so far, is a Human Being of the highest order. (until further notice.) let's just simply contrast BARAK OBAMA to this:

Photobucket




This post was modified by He Live's on 2008-11-07 06:29:32

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Nov 6, 2008 8:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

Except that you've framed the debate to fit your argument. You've narrowed Obama's economic message down for him and set up a straw man situation. Why are trickle down and Kensyan our only 2 choices in this debate? Because you said so?

and since when are you the arbiter of saying that the economy is the only thing that matters? A lot of us care about a few other little things, like a war based on a lie (oh, right, according to your set-up I'm not allowed to talk about that, b/c Bush is history...funny thing about history...it has a habit of impacting the present and the future, but hey, that's just a trifling detail) that's still costing U.S. and Iraqi (but who cares about them, right?) lives and is pumping $10 Billion a month down the sinkhole.

Let's see.....what else did I foolishly care about when I voted? How about the environment, climate change, and civil liberties. But go ahead and bully everyone who disagrees with you about Joe the Plumber. And feel free to call me an asshole like you did last time I dared disagree with your opinion.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 6, 2008 8:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

Here I offered up an opportunity to legitimately discuss what is generally agreed to as the critical issue of the election in a non partisan way and you continue to rant. I suppose if the economy was not of import, you could vote the way you did for the reasons you specified. That's fine,it was your vote to spend. Furthermore, if you'd like to offer up additional economic models to consider, please do. I only mentioned supply side or "trickle down" because our president elect not only suggested but outright said it failed. As for the Keynesian model, it's what Obama brings to the table, pretty much by definition. Feel free to expand.

If you want to debate the other issues such as global warming and the environment, it will still be necessary to refer back to the economics involved. I believe you would be mistake if you believe that they exist outside the realm of economics. Just saying.



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffNoiseCollector Date: Nov 6, 2008 9:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: fuggetaboudit

Hey man, there will never be a civil and objective debate until we are all vulcans or cyborgs. Emotion trumps logic everytime, ever get in a fight with your a wife and wonder what the hell you are arguing about? Someone will mention socialism and others will harp on a red dress, even after they complained about hearing about blue a dress in the 90's. The spirit of co-operation is dead. I cannot even get people to stop attacking me and the losing side of an election with silly videos like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZZivl5iKCo

I am not pointing figures but some folks won't accept defeat or victory honorably and will continue to attack the messanger regardless of the message. It's instinctual and automatic from I see. I was pushed to the limit of sanity trying to get folks to see one point of dozens that should have concerned them if they even shared 10% of the same interest in the future of our country and it didn't work. In an epystemological alternate reality where truth is relative is where we exist now. I still have my cacti.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: fuggetaboudit

>>>Here I offered up an opportunity to legitimately discuss what is generally agreed to as the critical issue of the election in a non partisan way and you continue to rant.>>>

The question itself was not legit!

If the right shared only 3% of the liberal love of the country and life itself, they'd hear bluebirds sing.

But seriously, why should the country rely on the same old stale economic advice? Daivid Stockman got into trouble for admitting they didn't really know what was going on with the numbers.

All of Greenspan's tricks were ideological and self-serving in try to avoid the business cycle; who really thinks they can avoid dynamics found in every living system?

As for globalization, it's unworkable unless there's very cheap energy. And there isn't.

This post was modified by spacedface on 2008-11-06 18:42:19

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffNoiseCollector Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: fuggetaboudit

http://www.archive.org/details/RandolfeWicker-GAYFUNERALS139

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: Nov 6, 2008 9:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: fuggetaboudit



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QfEiDO9opg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffNoiseCollector Date: Nov 6, 2008 9:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Not silly enough

I feel a tingy feeling on my leg or something, thanks. I do like the brass comedic effect after the chorus though... sounds like a subliminal poke at the arguable emptiness of the statement.

Lennon was wise:

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright

But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you'll have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be alright

A true skeptical and apprehensive caution of extremism...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BiscoBoy Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:17am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: fuggetaboudit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZGKLmyTEoQ

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BiscoBoy Date: Nov 6, 2008 8:40am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

In Earl's defense, I think he was being pretty objective about it.That's pretty tough, because this man (Barak) will never be viewed with objectivity.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:20am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

Bisco, what's the name of your other tentacles?

I agree with Grendels Choice, there are more than 2 schools of economics, and many subs too. See for example,

"Coherently Yours: Professor Krugman’s Track Record of Economic Commentary"

http://blogs.zoho.com/in-the-news/coherently-yours-professor-krugmans-track-record-of-economic-commentary/

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BiscoBoy Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

Ozric annd Altenative

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

pretty damn funny answer

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffNoiseCollector Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: religion

http://www.archive.org/details/Tags12345-ATHEISTSINHELL660

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Nov 6, 2008 8:44am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

Straw man = Burning man = Smelly twirlers, glow sticks, bad ecstasy, too much dust = 2012 Republican Convention.

Hey, the last one didn't work out so well, try for something different. Connect with those wacky kids. Instead of $3,000 Chanel dresses, Palin should go for a $50 Hemp mumu.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Nov 6, 2008 8:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

She'd be a great twirler if she ever got a hold of some good Alaskan weed and a Dark Star from '73.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: Nov 6, 2008 9:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

i think she was here at a tender age of 16
http://www.archive.org/details/gd1980-06-21.mtx.dan.28475.sbeok.flac24

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Nov 6, 2008 9:20am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

Maybe that's where she got the "I can see Russia from my window" thing.

If I was at that show, I'm sure I would have been seeing some weird shit as well.

Once again, THAT'S what I'm talkin' about.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:55am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: wassssssssssup 2008

THAT'S what I'm talkin' about.

And shame on the first person who then suggests she should now camp out in an abandoned school bus in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness.

Or if you like nostalgia, beer and liberals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndzWVnD7-vQ

UPDATE: Just released: this lost outtake from Obama's draft acceptance speech:
"I'll drink your health, share your wealth, run your life, steal your wife."

Wait, I think that was Clinton's.



Just kidding folks.


This post was modified by SomeDarkHollow on 2008-11-06 18:55:07

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jglynn1.2 Date: Nov 6, 2008 4:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: wassssssssss really up 2008

And now for something different

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYpC0Uqu9Zs&;feature=related

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: Nov 7, 2008 7:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: wassssssssss really up 2008- Pato Banton refresher..

...and sing-a-long >>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rewSToCtdPg

btw, what is > "I quickly built up a five-sheeter"
(UK-rob?)

Now this one is dedicated to the people all over.
Remember the words of your crucial entertainer.
When I say: I do not sniff the coke I only smoke the sensimilla.

Without a doubt I am the boss, in my class I am the teacher.
If music is the fruit of life then I will be a reaper.
If M. C. business was a school then I would be head master
if a car I'd be the driver, if a bike I'd be the rider.
If M. C. business was a church Pato would be the vicar
then instead of calling me M. C. you all would call me preacher.
But fun and joke aside I want to get serious in this matter
and dedicate this style to each and every cocaine dealer.

In February 1985 Pato became a winner
because I did that tune called 'Allo Tosh Gotta Toshiba.
It shooted up the charts and nearly gave my mom heart failure.
She looked at me and said:

"Son me glad me grow you proper.
A son like you would be the pride and joy of any mother.
No make the fame get to your head just think about your future."

Those words of encouragement just made me push on further
to break down any walls and also break through any barrier.
I got a lot of guidance from G. T. who is my manager
assistance from Don Christie Fashion helped me cross the border.
I also got a lot of aid from good good sensimilla
that's why I do not snort the coke I only burn the Ganja.

One day I had to catch a train from Birmingham to London
half way on my journey was approached by this white roughian.
With greasy hair and scruffy jeans he looked just like a villain
he sat down opposite me with a Tennants [lager] in his right hand.
But I don't judge appearance I just check the way you galong
so I introduced myself to him as Mr. Pato Banton.

"Nice to meet ya, my name's Roadie and I work with P. A. Hire.
I've heard your name some place before but I just can't remember.
But anyway I'm very very very glad to meet ya.
And I've got some dope it's first class coke
you can have this for a fiver."

I looked down on the table and saw a piece of silver paper.
Inside this silver paper was some powder looked like flour.
Me asked: What it do for you? It give you strength and power?
Now everyone I want you to hear the way that roadie answered:

"Well Mr. Pato Banton the sensation is fine.
It makes me see green men and then I go to cloud nine.
All my worries and problems are left miles behind.
So no matter where I am I have a brilliant time.
If you don't believe me hold on and I'll fix you a line.
Just take one sniff of this and you'll be out of your mind."

But I took the coke and threw it right outside the carriage window.
Before he could say a word I quickly built up a five-sheeter
into my pocket for my sensi and my lighter.
I lit it with a flash and then to Roadie passed it over.
I could see that he was loving it because of his expression.
Me tell him: "This is sensi the healing of the nation.
In some places doctors use it for herbal medication.
Ronald Reagan smoke it just before him go pon television.
After Margaret Thatcher visit him she bring some back to England
then distributes it equally throughout the house commons.
But fun and joke aside it gives me deep deep meditation
it fills my heart with Niceness and I get nuff inspiration.
You could be any colour any creed or any nation
after smoking sensimilla I know you'll find the reason
why I do not sniff coke I only smoke sensimilla!


This post was modified by rastamon on 2008-11-07 15:29:52

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Styrofoam Cueball Date: Nov 6, 2008 9:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

Although I'd consider myself a Keynesian rather than a Friedmanite/Supply-Sider, the more I read Keynes the more quaint he seems. His ideas seem to apply to his time more than ours. Maybe that's what Earl meant about 'non-applicable in a Global economy:' the more people involved, the more bureaucratic and ineffective the govenment would be in a Keynesian-based system. However, I still don't take the view that the market will correct itself if only it was completely deregulated and left alone to do "The Business Of America" (re: Coolidge).

Now, fuck all this, I want to listen to a '73 "Eyes"...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 6, 2008 8:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Random thoughts in no order..

My view is that stupidity, not simple greed (sure, that's there too) plays a large role in recent events. The guys that came up with the financial devices that should've been seen for what they were (risky mortgages) didn't plan on loosing everything; they thought it would work. So did the junk bond guys, the partnership fans, etc., etc., etc., of yesteryear. Addt'l, Greenspan is both the hero and culprit for where we are now: careful fiscal mge allowed the Wall Street party to continue unabated for roughly 25 yrs (eg, we would have had deeper valleys) but this was managed largely by accumulating "debt" which in a sense has come due. Gross oversimplification.

My view is that you must take a middle ground. There must be regulation, for as simple a reason as "we can't all get out of a burning building unless we do it in an orderly fashion, so it is a common good for us to let ourselves be regulated as to how to exit" etc., etc. But, excessive regulation clearly can lead to stifling creativity, growth, etc. Regulation and gub-ER-mint involvement has been going on for ever, so it's nothing new...

So, without expressing it very well, I am for a newly articulated approach to a well, but at most MODESTLY regulated economic model.

I am fundamentally against taxation, BUT accept that it is a necessary evil for a functional society, and feel that it can be progressive without being punitive with respect to economic growth.

I do also think that the economy IS the fundamental issue because all else flows from it. We can achieve all the good (eg, Grendel's pts) far more easily under sunny economic skies.

However, one worrisome fact: gobalization. Without some significant breakthru developments on any number of fronts (energy, medical, etc.), we do NOT have the ability to raise everyone's standard of living to ours (US). Thus, globalization without new developments will lead to a reduction of our standard.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Nov 6, 2008 11:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Random thoughts in no order..

A modest proposal for the Obama admin: legalize drugs, make sure their pure, and tax the hell out of them.

Since folks won't go for that, can we at least get the weed? That would take care of California's problems in a hurry (and would lead to more people to be able to comment on the boys; hell, who knows, I might even learn to care about the Phish comeback.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Nov 6, 2008 1:00pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Random thoughts in no order..

3 separate shootings in my neighborhood this fall over "legal" medical marijuana grows.

Until they make pot legal for ALL, these crimes will continue.

Also, I agree....government and society would be well served by the legalization and regulation of "recreational" drugs.



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 6, 2008 11:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Random thoughts in no order..

I do very much believe in ind. rights in all manner of domains, like this, even if it seems contrary to my pitch for modest gub-er-mint regulation of larger societal activities...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patkelleyPA Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

Why don't we talk about the Grateful Dead here, rather than Keynes and economic policy.

What do you do for a living, Earl? I'm curious because you obviously are not getting enough intellectual stimulation from it if you are posing difficult questions of economic policy on a Deadhead forum.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 6, 2008 11:27am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

Well Pat, it appears as if I'm handling about as many cases as you are. I'm pretty much done defending Jack Murtha over there at the KKK blog.

Fact is, that this board, when not engaged in blow job humor, has the capacity to take on some intellectual challenges. It's only wasted bytes, and if you don't find it interesting, feel free to scroll.

I promise that unless provoked, I'll cut it out shortly.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patkelleyPA Date: Nov 6, 2008 11:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

I'm handling like 45 cases right now, most of which are civil cases in Discovery, but many of which are criminal cases in all different stages.

I come on here as a break from that shit, to talk about my favorite band.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 6, 2008 11:51am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

If you got 45 cases and time to be here, I'd like to know how to avoid using your services. (Sorry, just returning the snide assumption:)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 6, 2008 1:33pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

I take it as a compliment. Frankly, I've been pleasantly surprised many a time here; never thought I'd find such enjoyment of the music of the boys, a few folks I am happy to call friends, and now and again, a damn fine little diversion on topics as diverse as sports, military history (who knew four people could quote chapter and verse on the speeches of Roosevelt, Churchill and Chamberlain??? It boggles the mind!), politics, religion, and cowboy prose.

And, it just goes with my job that I spend so much time on the computer that these 5 minutes per hr I waste (maybe not) here are certainly as productive as any I spend with folks in my neighborhood (with whom I have less in common in most instances)...

To provide a more succinct answer, EBP, I do very much like the way someone expressed it above. I am more or less a Keynesian, but his quaintness might need a significant upgrade!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Nov 6, 2008 1:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

Interesting article Earl posted; read during lunch. Obviously Cass Susstein will play a large role in advising Obama, but that oxymoronic (!) term "Libertarian paternalism" - how did McCain/Palin not seize on that? I did a double take.

Oh well, we've got the curse of the Chinese (in more ways than one): we do live in interesting times.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patourkid Date: Nov 6, 2008 2:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

So who won the election? All I got out of all the news cast was BLA BLA BLA......something or other.....BLA BLA BLA.......we're all screwed.....BLA BLA BLA....recession......BLA BLA BLA.....but every morning when I go to my JOB to MAKE MONEY to pay for my nice house in the suburbs all I see is the sun shining and people driving expensive cars to their expensive houses. Our economy is down RIGHT NOW......look at a chart of the stock market of the last 25 years........WE ARE WAY BETTER OFF THAN WE WERE THEN!!!! So there are a lot of STUPID people getting a HARD lesson on how to budget their money.....don't buy what you can't afford, there are a lot of GREEDY bankers going under because they were giving loans to people who they KNEW couldn't afford them. Americans are LAZY and GREEDY we want, want, want. OH MY I CANT AFFORD GAS FOR MY CADILLAC ESCALADE!!!! *GASP* the world is gonna end!!! As Americans we need to wake up to the reality WE LIVE HIGH ON THE HOG!!!! Sure things are looking like there gonna go downhill.....NOT TO HELL....just downhill. We wouldn't know how to act if things REALLY got hard, how about living in a country where you have to walk 2 miles to get dirty water out of a well thats drying up as we speak, and crops won't grow because it doesn't rain!?!?? Most of us on this board are at least eating a meal every day, it seems to me like Americans just expect that because they're American they deserve to have it easy......wrong......ok enough of my rant.....how bout them Eyes??????? I hear they were SMOKIN in 73', But how could that be the economy was WAY below where it is today!!!!???? *GASP* maybe money and politics aren't the only things that matter in the world. I guarantee if you ask someone who witnessed a 73'Eyes what they were thinking about while Jerry was blowing their mind the answer WONT be POLITICS!!!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Styrofoam Cueball Date: Nov 6, 2008 5:52pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1973-10-29.sbd.miller.32352.sbeok.flac16

A grand '73 "Eyes"....and I swear there's a "Me And My Uncle" tease after Phil's solo... :)

This post was modified by Styrofoam Cueball on 2008-11-07 01:52:02

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patourkid Date: Nov 6, 2008 5:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

On an odd side note if you look at the bottom where thanks are given....."Thank you to Rob Eaton" I have heard MANY folks badmouthing DSO but most don't realize that these CRAZY matrix's we are lucky enough to be getting are OFTEN coming from Mr. Eaton's personal collection....for those of you who don't know Mr. Eaton is a member of DSO and Mr. Miller is they're sound man. But yeah THAT IS A GOOD EYES!!!!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jglynn1.2 Date: Nov 6, 2008 3:57pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYSx6b96_Zs

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patourkid Date: Nov 6, 2008 4:26pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

YEEEEEEAAAAHHHHH BBBOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!! I once rocked a clock like that .......still never made it to an appointment on time. So I retired it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patourkid Date: Nov 6, 2008 4:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzhpB1X-6ok&;feature=related


"I blame the liberal media"......now THAT IS FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 6, 2008 4:58pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

Well, all I know is that my retirement account suggests there is a connection between Wall Street and My Street.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Nov 6, 2008 5:02pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

that whole thing about investing in beer and recycling the cans doesn't seem like such a bad strategy right about now....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Nov 6, 2008 5:43pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

This place is getting crazier and crazier. Now the heading reads "...beats sports."

Not to THIS sports fan it doesn't.

Listen, there's a reason Harry Truman once said the only economist he ever wanted to hear from was a one-armed economist. When asked why he said "Because then I wouldn't have to hear him say 'and that's how it should be done, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND..."

Point being that you can't get two economists to agree on what the weather is outside, much less the best way to handle the economy, so I doubt a bunch of DeadHeads, as occassionally capable of scrambled intellect as we at times might be, are going to get to the bottom of America's economic plight, especially on this forum with hijacked threads, Sarah Palin jokes (keep 'em comin') and forays into the land of YouTube every two minutes.

But since Earl did pose the question--yes, I still believe he narrowed the framework to fit his own argument and decided for Obama what Obama's economic plan is by using the old 'essentially he means this' construct--at least he didn't resort to calling me, a person he's never actually met, an asshole, so i believe I do owe him--if he's still listening--the courtesy of a serious reply.

I will, however, stick to my own simplistic view, which is this: Whatever has happened economically the last 8 years has been utter faiure. Do we really need any more proof? And it boils down simply to de-regulation run wild. Foxes in charge of the henhouses. I do not believe in crushing government oversight, but as WTell has said, SOME regulation is needed so things like 'credit default swaps' aren't allowed to ruin peoples' lives.

One more thing: Obama is scheduled to give a nationally broadcast speech on his initial plans for the economy to be carried live across most media outlets tomorrow afternoon, I believe. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong--I think it's at 2:20pm).

shouldn't we at least wait to hear what he has to say before claiming to know what he wants to do and declaring it a failure?

and finally, let's give Jery the final word on economics:

"same old story, and I know it's been told: some like jelly jelly, some like gold. Many a man's done a terrible thing...just to get baby a shiny diamond ring."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 6, 2008 7:18pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

Thanks for the answer, no sabotage intended, no preemptive strikes, just a change in the discourse and dialogue. Meaning, I believe that you would like me to take your point of view seriously...and if you're going to speak with a "voice of authority" there must be some underlying and resonant philosophy behind your convictions.

Simply stating that Bush sucks and fucked up the last 8 years is simple minded, requires no thought and carries no authority...even if it's a statement of fact. On the other hand, if you were to reply "supply side economics has clearly not worked, and it's probably due to a lack of oversight and shoddy regulation." Then the dialogue is engaged and the intellect at work.

Thus the economic challenge. Just asking for some logic and reasoning rather than emotional displays of anger and distrust. I apologize for the asshole comment, but it was a question of treating someone with an opposing viewpoint in the same manner.

I agree apologists for Bush are pathetic, if and when they fail to make a case for their argument. Just like those of the opposing view. Pointing to failure and the dismal state of the world, then selecting a candidate because he just has to be better than the shit we got now doesn't seem to me to be of value, authoritative, or even reasonable. Show me the features and benefits of your position, I may have a case against it, but at least an exchange of some merit has occurred, rather than dismissing it because Obama has big ears, for example.

Finally, I would assume that when speaking either ill or well of Jerry or the Dead, you would probably like your opinion to carry some meaning. Saying Jerry was a junkie and he sucked at guitar, I saw him play in '94 and was just an old fat man. (Might be true, but doesn't carry the weight of any one that cares enough to be informed.)

So if you, or Spaced or anyone at all want to engage me about politics, religion, guns or maybe even the Dead, it might be polite to assume that my point of view may have some merit, even if it doesn't agree with yours. Likewise, I should treat you and others the same respect I ask for.

By the way, bigger brains than ours argue the merits of economics with the same amount of disagreement. Nobody firmly knows the odds of success or failure of Obama's strategerie, only the likes and dislikes. I for one can't afford to have him fail, so he better be the Messiah.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Nov 7, 2008 3:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

Well, Earl, I actually think we're getting somewhere.

Here's the deal: I'm not an economist, and even the "experts" get it wrong more often than not (see: Greenspan, Alan).

But I think I did make clear my general feeling on economic philosophy, which is that I do NOT favor Reagen-styled "trickle down" because it assumes that helping the rich get richer (i.e. capital gains tax cuts, corporate welfare, de-regulation so widespread it fosters the kind of culture that allows golden parachutes for CEO's who run their companies into the ground) will translate into helping folks who drag their asses out of bed at 4am to drive buses or work in the ER, what have you, and are expected to put their kids thru college on a $40,000 a year salary.

Those folks are NOT going to get better economically under "trickle down" b/c the rich have a way of--instead of wanting to share that good fortune (i mean fortune in the literal sense, not luck, though some, like Donald Trump, who start life w.a $30 Million inheritance are just that)--INCREASING their own. They have 2 houses? They want 3. They took 4 vacations to the Alps to go skiing last year? Now they want to add a 5th to Fiji for a warm weather break. There is no requirement for them to share their wealth (nor SHOULD there be) so telling people that giving them tax breaks b/c eventually that money will help the middle class is bullshit.

Now, I KNOW you hate looking backwards, but I'm sorry, you sometimes HAVE TO if you;re to prove your point...and the FACT is that in the past 8 years of right wing, conservative control, wages for the middle class have fallen, it's more prohibitive than EVER for middle class people to afford a decent college education for their kids, and the pay gap between the uber-rich and the poor has never been wider. So all I'm saying is: I don't know if Obama can change all that, but why would you hold it against me (or anyone) who looks at what WAS there, hear McCain say he wants to make the (ridiculous) Bush tax cuts permanent, and give NO signs he's about to change anything regarding the way things were done over those 8 years (and admitted publicly that economics is not his strong point), and decide to vote for the other guy????

Seems to me as well that since there's only 2 things that are guaranteed in this world--death and taxes--it's OK to at least TRY shifting a greater share of the tax burden to people making more than $180,000 a year...just to see if giving a break for a change to those folks who are pulling in $50,000 a year may help them get a leg up. Hey, that's just me...definition of a bleeding heart I guess. But I'm willing to try it, and i'm curious to see if it works. The middle class, such as it is, is shrinking. And in the state where I live, the local homeless shelters have had to turn away people because now a lot of folks who have jobs, and kids, and considered themselves middle class, are now finding themselves unable to stay in their homes or even afford rent. That's heartbreaking no matter what your political affiliation is, and I'm willing to give Obama-nomics (I just made that up!) a fair shake.

I'll tell you, though...he's no messiah, and if you expect him to be, you;ll be sadly disappointed.

Oh, and one final thing: What you said about Jerry, re: 1994, is exactly right. I can admit that loving the guy as much as I do and always will for the joy he brought me over the years. By '94 he was just a shell of his former self and it was sad.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 7, 2008 5:00am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

Nuff said. Almost like a unilateral accord. I knew we could do it. Both of us are guys working hard to make a go of it, and have a different view in the way government should play a role in our lives. Ultimately, I've never had a change in administration either make me rich or throw me under the bus. Then again, I have always been operating with a little more headroom in the past.

Peace out. Really.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Nov 7, 2008 6:26am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

Same to you, brother.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Nov 7, 2008 7:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

Earl >>>On the other hand, if you were to reply "supply side economics has clearly not worked, and it's probably due to a lack of oversight and shoddy regulation." Then the dialogue is engaged and the intellect at work. >>>

What is supply-side economics, and has it really ever been practiced since Nixon?

I under it it as voodoo economics for mass media, but nothing really attempted.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 7, 2008 7:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

Spaced: At the end of the day, it wasn't about economic theory, it was about generating respectful dialogue between folks that have opposing views. Rather than accusing someone of being brainwashed by Fox or MSNBC for that matter, take the dialogue to the next level. Rather than calling folks sycophants of the current administration, elevate the rhetorical into the intellectual...take them to task for their positions. Again, if you say something and want your opinion to be treated as the voice of authority, saying "Bush Sucks" doesn't reflect an informed opinion, only a biased one.

For all kinds of reasons, I find hatred and misplaced criticism in politics not only to be counter-productive, but disrespectful. I feel like at minimum, I have the capacity to see through the rhetorical nuances and waves of bullshit that both parties try so desperately make hay with. Frankly, political discourse during and election cycle is aimed at folks that have little in the way of a philosophical anchor, more toward those that can easily be swayed. We should aim higher.

Anyway, it's enough, if at least here, we can agree to disagree in a respectful manner.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Nov 7, 2008 1:18pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

Earl >>>On the other hand, if you were to reply "supply side economics has clearly not worked, and it's probably due to a lack of oversight and shoddy regulation." Then the dialogue is engaged and the intellect at work. >>>

What is supply-side economics, and has it really ever been practiced since Nixon?

I understand it as "voodoo economics" for mass media, but nothing that really attempted.

I suppose the difference is that while both side tax & spend, the supply-side borrows extravagantly. The Keynesians, the "tax & spend" umbrella group I guess, might tax the lower classes less because they understand that the only the little people pay taxes.

The right wing could accurately be called "borrow, tax, & spend" which in a way out-Keynesians the Keynesians, except that their taxing and busniess policies weigh heavy in favor of the very wealthy.

I'm sticking with idea that these labels are even more meaning less than in the past. Will Obama's intention to investment in infracstrure project and reduce taxes a bit on the masses loosen purse strings? It's worked before and it seems like a matter of whether there's confidence in the country's future.

There should be but restructuring of management might be needed in several industries, like auto. Detroit seems uninterested in building good efficient cars, so why should they be saved without changing their products?

Well, it's just talk.

This post was modified by spacedface on 2008-11-07 21:18:31

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 6, 2008 6:10pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

# 2: yep you have to regulate cause people are greedy, and more recently, stupid. Can you believe the Lehman Stearns guys? They didn't want to lose everything...they hoped it would work...and if you're going to bail, they were more connected than anyone.

But, I digress...

Third, problem is, we have to see these problems before the develop, and that's tough...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 6, 2008 6:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

Well, did it beat "discussion of sports?"

My bad.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Nov 6, 2008 3:08pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

Yea, too bad we all get to pay to bail them out.

Funny, but I'm listening to 7/13/14 Scarlet-Touch-Fire and definitely was not thinking about politics, but now recall tht on the Monday after that show I saw Jesse speak to the masses at 84 DNC convention before slowly hitching back to Santa Cruz and then down 1 to Ventura.

And politics certainly played a role in getting the band to the pyramids (and probably prevented their planned trip to China).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patourkid Date: Nov 6, 2008 3:13pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

Yeah after reading my post it does seem to come across a little more harsh than I had intended. And yeah your right we will do the bailing out. I was just taking smack more than anything, I'm a LITTLE bitter about not being allowed to vote because of a bullshit law that pretty much states "if we catch you with drugs you must be too stupid to vote." Even if you don't do drugs anymore and you paid ALL your fines, did your time, completed your probation and are now an upstanding tax paying member of society. I am good enough to pay taxes but too "stupid" to vote. Ahhhhhhhh.....this is why I DON'T talk politics LOLOL!!! How bout them Eyes????? LOL.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Nov 6, 2008 3:37pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: No need to apologize...beats sports!

that sucks and I do think it is wrong; what disturbs me even more (sorry) is how they'll boot people from public housing (sorry grannie - told the gang not to use our kitchen) or deny student aid. some young pup gets popped for smoking weed (or whatever) at 19 but then can't get necessary aid for school to better him/herself? Seems bassackwards.

Listend to an Eyes into Estimated the other day (recent TDIH) - that was different.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patkelleyPA Date: Nov 6, 2008 11:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

Paralegals, baby. Plus, this is a slow week due to my efforts to go to 3 or 4 CLEs before the end of the year, and pushing other things around.

You can avoid using my services by not being arrested in PA, and not suing someone here.

This post was modified by patkelleyPA on 2008-11-06 19:58:55